I have questions about the 'New Path to Nucleosynthesis' posting on Research Gate.
First, from a very general perspective, is this work intended to be reproducible? Empirical findings should be reported in a way that an interested party could reproduce them if desired. I don't think that this work qualifies as it stands. Most acutely, the recipe for producing the pellets showing gamma activity is unspecified, and since all reported results follow from this they are all cast under suspicion.
Second, I have problems matching the observations described in the text and in Figure 3 with the data shown in Figures 1 and 2 ... and my task here is not helped by the poor quality of the figures themselves (labels are blurry, scales are unlabeled, etc). I suppose that Table 3 is supposed to show lines actually detected in spectra such as shown in Figure 1a and 1b, but in many cases I cannot detect any such lines (such as for the first 9 lines reported in Figure 3) or the match between reported lines and the data in Figure 1 is not clear. On the other hand, some of what I would have thought are the most prominent lines to be explained in the background subtracted spectra of Figure 1 (for instance near 71 keV) do not occur in the table depicted in Figure 3. Is this because they are not predicted? Or not sufficiently active to be listed in Figure 3? The one at 71 keV certainly seems highly active.
I even have trouble locating, in Figure 2, the features Wyttenbach and George, report as present in the lab background spectrum. In Section 2, (titled "Results of Spectroscopy") they say that "The most active discrete lines we see in the background are ... 63.3, 92.4, 92.8 keV" as well as others at 109.16 and 185.7 keV. I dont see any of these in Figure 2.
Overall, I think it would be a very good idea for the authors to show arrows on their spectra pointing to some of the features claimed to exist.
Finally, here is a comment that falls into the category of 'I'm not a spectroscopist but' .... Why are the down-pointing features in Figure 1 so much pointier and sharper that the up-pointing ones that are supposed to be discrete lines? I would have expected the opposite.